Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1731 | control, N = 861 | treatment, N = 871 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 171 | 50.87 ± 12.58 (25 - 75) | 51.09 ± 12.74 (25 - 75) | 50.65 ± 12.50 (28 - 73) | 0.818 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 173 | 0.679 | |||
f | 137 (79%) | 67 (78%) | 70 (80%) | ||
m | 36 (21%) | 19 (22%) | 17 (20%) | ||
occupation | 173 | 0.923 | |||
day_training | 4 (2.3%) | 2 (2.3%) | 2 (2.3%) | ||
full_time | 21 (12%) | 11 (13%) | 10 (11%) | ||
homemaker | 18 (10%) | 8 (9.3%) | 10 (11%) | ||
other | 2 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.3%) | ||
part_time | 32 (18%) | 16 (19%) | 16 (18%) | ||
retired | 43 (25%) | 21 (24%) | 22 (25%) | ||
self_employ | 7 (4.0%) | 4 (4.7%) | 3 (3.4%) | ||
student | 2 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.3%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (1.2%) | 1 (1.2%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
unemploy | 42 (24%) | 23 (27%) | 19 (22%) | ||
marital | 173 | 0.966 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.6%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
divore | 19 (11%) | 11 (13%) | 8 (9.2%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (2.3%) | 2 (2.3%) | 2 (2.3%) | ||
married | 53 (31%) | 25 (29%) | 28 (32%) | ||
none | 83 (48%) | 41 (48%) | 42 (48%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.7%) | 2 (2.3%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
widow | 10 (5.8%) | 5 (5.8%) | 5 (5.7%) | ||
edu | 173 | 0.347 | |||
bachelor | 39 (23%) | 15 (17%) | 24 (28%) | ||
diploma | 32 (18%) | 21 (24%) | 11 (13%) | ||
hd_ad | 5 (2.9%) | 4 (4.7%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
postgraduate | 15 (8.7%) | 8 (9.3%) | 7 (8.0%) | ||
primary | 12 (6.9%) | 5 (5.8%) | 7 (8.0%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 19 (11%) | 10 (12%) | 9 (10%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 42 (24%) | 19 (22%) | 23 (26%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 9 (5.2%) | 4 (4.7%) | 5 (5.7%) | ||
fam_income | 173 | 0.748 | |||
10001_12000 | 6 (3.5%) | 2 (2.3%) | 4 (4.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 10 (5.8%) | 4 (4.7%) | 6 (6.9%) | ||
14001_16000 | 8 (4.6%) | 3 (3.5%) | 5 (5.7%) | ||
16001_18000 | 4 (2.3%) | 2 (2.3%) | 2 (2.3%) | ||
18001_20000 | 8 (4.6%) | 6 (7.0%) | 2 (2.3%) | ||
20001_above | 32 (18%) | 19 (22%) | 13 (15%) | ||
2001_4000 | 24 (14%) | 13 (15%) | 11 (13%) | ||
4001_6000 | 19 (11%) | 7 (8.1%) | 12 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 16 (9.2%) | 9 (10%) | 7 (8.0%) | ||
8001_10000 | 14 (8.1%) | 7 (8.1%) | 7 (8.0%) | ||
below_2000 | 32 (18%) | 14 (16%) | 18 (21%) | ||
medication | 173 | 154 (89%) | 76 (88%) | 78 (90%) | 0.787 |
onset_duration | 170 | 15.50 ± 10.42 (0 - 56) | 15.98 ± 11.40 (0 - 56) | 15.00 ± 9.35 (0 - 35) | 0.544 |
Unknown | 3 | 0 | 3 | ||
onset_age | 168 | 35.55 ± 13.49 (10 - 65) | 34.98 ± 12.19 (10 - 61) | 36.12 ± 14.73 (14 - 65) | 0.583 |
Unknown | 5 | 2 | 3 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1731 | control, N = 861 | treatment, N = 871 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 173 | 3.10 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.14 ± 1.24 (1 - 5) | 3.07 ± 1.16 (1 - 5) | 0.699 |
recovery_stage_b | 173 | 17.82 ± 2.83 (8 - 24) | 17.92 ± 2.90 (8 - 24) | 17.72 ± 2.79 (9 - 24) | 0.653 |
ras_confidence | 173 | 29.76 ± 5.27 (14 - 45) | 29.37 ± 5.16 (14 - 40) | 30.14 ± 5.38 (18 - 45) | 0.341 |
ras_willingness | 173 | 11.78 ± 2.02 (5 - 15) | 11.71 ± 2.02 (5 - 15) | 11.85 ± 2.03 (7 - 15) | 0.647 |
ras_goal | 173 | 17.42 ± 3.13 (7 - 25) | 17.16 ± 3.03 (7 - 24) | 17.67 ± 3.22 (11 - 25) | 0.291 |
ras_reliance | 173 | 13.31 ± 2.90 (5 - 20) | 13.08 ± 2.82 (5 - 18) | 13.54 ± 2.97 (7 - 20) | 0.299 |
ras_domination | 173 | 9.77 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 9.95 ± 2.50 (3 - 15) | 9.59 ± 2.36 (3 - 15) | 0.322 |
symptom | 173 | 29.94 ± 9.10 (14 - 56) | 30.08 ± 9.46 (14 - 55) | 29.80 ± 8.78 (15 - 56) | 0.842 |
slof_work | 173 | 22.33 ± 4.77 (10 - 30) | 22.55 ± 4.39 (12 - 30) | 22.11 ± 5.14 (10 - 30) | 0.554 |
slof_relationship | 173 | 25.31 ± 5.91 (9 - 35) | 24.98 ± 5.91 (9 - 35) | 25.64 ± 5.93 (11 - 35) | 0.460 |
satisfaction | 173 | 20.38 ± 7.12 (5 - 35) | 19.56 ± 6.97 (5 - 33) | 21.18 ± 7.22 (5 - 35) | 0.134 |
mhc_emotional | 173 | 10.76 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 10.51 ± 3.69 (3 - 17) | 11.01 ± 3.83 (3 - 18) | 0.383 |
mhc_social | 173 | 14.97 ± 5.57 (5 - 30) | 14.78 ± 5.57 (5 - 30) | 15.16 ± 5.59 (5 - 29) | 0.653 |
mhc_psychological | 173 | 21.67 ± 6.43 (6 - 36) | 21.45 ± 6.27 (7 - 36) | 21.89 ± 6.62 (6 - 36) | 0.660 |
resilisnce | 173 | 16.35 ± 4.69 (6 - 30) | 15.78 ± 4.25 (6 - 24) | 16.91 ± 5.05 (6 - 30) | 0.113 |
social_provision | 173 | 13.51 ± 2.86 (5 - 20) | 13.12 ± 2.68 (5 - 20) | 13.90 ± 3.00 (5 - 20) | 0.073 |
els_value_living | 173 | 16.94 ± 3.18 (5 - 25) | 16.66 ± 3.05 (6 - 22) | 17.21 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 0.261 |
els_life_fulfill | 173 | 12.70 ± 3.38 (4 - 20) | 12.23 ± 3.32 (5 - 19) | 13.16 ± 3.39 (4 - 20) | 0.071 |
els | 173 | 29.64 ± 6.00 (9 - 45) | 28.90 ± 5.76 (11 - 39) | 30.37 ± 6.18 (9 - 45) | 0.107 |
social_connect | 173 | 26.59 ± 9.28 (8 - 48) | 27.08 ± 8.95 (8 - 48) | 26.10 ± 9.63 (8 - 48) | 0.490 |
shs_agency | 173 | 14.29 ± 5.11 (3 - 24) | 13.77 ± 4.77 (3 - 21) | 14.80 ± 5.41 (3 - 24) | 0.183 |
shs_pathway | 173 | 15.95 ± 4.18 (3 - 24) | 15.41 ± 4.18 (3 - 24) | 16.48 ± 4.14 (4 - 24) | 0.091 |
shs | 173 | 30.24 ± 8.90 (6 - 48) | 29.17 ± 8.58 (6 - 45) | 31.29 ± 9.14 (7 - 48) | 0.119 |
esteem | 173 | 12.62 ± 1.57 (9 - 20) | 12.63 ± 1.62 (9 - 18) | 12.62 ± 1.54 (10 - 20) | 0.976 |
mlq_search | 173 | 14.87 ± 3.59 (3 - 21) | 14.50 ± 3.61 (4 - 21) | 15.23 ± 3.55 (3 - 21) | 0.182 |
mlq_presence | 173 | 13.34 ± 4.43 (3 - 21) | 13.20 ± 4.17 (3 - 21) | 13.47 ± 4.69 (3 - 21) | 0.686 |
mlq | 173 | 28.20 ± 7.14 (6 - 42) | 27.70 ± 6.84 (7 - 40) | 28.70 ± 7.43 (6 - 42) | 0.357 |
empower | 173 | 19.13 ± 4.33 (6 - 30) | 18.71 ± 4.17 (9 - 30) | 19.55 ± 4.48 (6 - 30) | 0.202 |
ismi_resistance | 173 | 14.40 ± 2.60 (5 - 20) | 14.41 ± 2.35 (6 - 20) | 14.40 ± 2.84 (5 - 20) | 0.991 |
ismi_discrimation | 173 | 11.65 ± 3.05 (5 - 20) | 11.83 ± 2.90 (5 - 20) | 11.48 ± 3.21 (5 - 20) | 0.462 |
sss_affective | 173 | 10.22 ± 3.64 (3 - 18) | 10.14 ± 3.56 (3 - 18) | 10.30 ± 3.73 (3 - 18) | 0.774 |
sss_behavior | 173 | 9.90 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 9.99 ± 3.80 (3 - 18) | 9.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 0.764 |
sss_cognitive | 173 | 8.43 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 8.36 ± 3.61 (3 - 18) | 8.51 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 0.798 |
sss | 173 | 28.55 ± 10.33 (9 - 54) | 28.49 ± 10.18 (9 - 54) | 28.62 ± 10.53 (9 - 54) | 0.933 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.14 | 0.127 | 2.89, 3.39 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.071 | 0.180 | -0.423, 0.282 | 0.695 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.175 | 0.194 | -0.205, 0.555 | 0.368 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.344 | 0.282 | -0.209, 0.896 | 0.225 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.311 | 17.3, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.194 | 0.438 | -1.05, 0.664 | 0.658 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.216 | 0.421 | -1.04, 0.610 | 0.610 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.870 | 0.613 | -0.333, 2.07 | 0.159 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 0.565 | 28.3, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.766 | 0.797 | -0.797, 2.33 | 0.338 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.28 | 0.583 | 0.138, 2.42 | 0.031 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.546 | 0.850 | -1.12, 2.21 | 0.522 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.7 | 0.218 | 11.3, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.141 | 0.307 | -0.461, 0.743 | 0.646 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.136 | 0.242 | -0.610, 0.338 | 0.575 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.409 | 0.353 | -0.282, 1.10 | 0.250 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.340 | 16.5, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.504 | 0.480 | -0.437, 1.44 | 0.295 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.293 | 0.411 | -0.513, 1.10 | 0.479 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.479 | 0.599 | -0.696, 1.65 | 0.426 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.313 | 12.5, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.459 | 0.441 | -0.405, 1.32 | 0.299 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.412 | 0.353 | -0.279, 1.10 | 0.246 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.427 | 0.514 | -0.582, 1.43 | 0.409 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 9.95 | 0.256 | 9.45, 10.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.367 | 0.361 | -1.07, 0.339 | 0.310 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.107 | 0.328 | -0.750, 0.536 | 0.745 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.21 | 0.478 | 0.271, 2.14 | 0.013 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 30.1 | 0.978 | 28.2, 32.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.277 | 1.379 | -2.98, 2.43 | 0.841 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.26 | 0.868 | -2.96, 0.438 | 0.149 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.469 | 1.267 | -2.95, 2.02 | 0.712 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.5 | 0.514 | 21.5, 23.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.432 | 0.725 | -1.85, 0.988 | 0.552 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.104 | 0.541 | -1.16, 0.957 | 0.848 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.456 | 0.790 | -1.09, 2.00 | 0.565 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.0 | 0.631 | 23.7, 26.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.667 | 0.890 | -1.08, 2.41 | 0.455 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.456 | 0.677 | -1.78, 0.871 | 0.502 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.718 | 0.988 | -1.22, 2.65 | 0.469 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.6 | 0.769 | 18.1, 21.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.63 | 1.084 | -0.499, 3.75 | 0.135 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.828 | 0.763 | -0.668, 2.32 | 0.281 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.663 | 1.114 | -1.52, 2.85 | 0.553 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.5 | 0.402 | 9.72, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.500 | 0.567 | -0.611, 1.61 | 0.379 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.489 | 0.394 | -0.283, 1.26 | 0.218 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.316 | 0.575 | -1.44, 0.811 | 0.584 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.620 | 13.6, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.382 | 0.875 | -1.33, 2.10 | 0.663 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.857 | 0.682 | -0.479, 2.19 | 0.212 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.083 | 0.994 | -2.03, 1.87 | 0.934 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.5 | 0.708 | 20.1, 22.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.432 | 0.999 | -1.53, 2.39 | 0.666 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.15 | 0.769 | -0.357, 2.66 | 0.138 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.233 | 1.122 | -2.43, 1.97 | 0.836 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 15.8 | 0.492 | 14.8, 16.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.13 | 0.694 | -0.232, 2.49 | 0.106 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.794 | 0.563 | -0.310, 1.90 | 0.162 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.09 | 0.821 | -0.518, 2.70 | 0.187 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.043 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.307 | 12.5, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.780 | 0.433 | -0.068, 1.63 | 0.073 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.454 | 0.355 | -1.15, 0.241 | 0.204 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.728 | 0.517 | -0.285, 1.74 | 0.162 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.7 | 0.345 | 16.0, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.544 | 0.487 | -0.410, 1.50 | 0.265 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.303 | 0.373 | -0.428, 1.03 | 0.419 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.234 | 0.544 | -0.833, 1.30 | 0.668 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.2 | 0.356 | 11.5, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.928 | 0.502 | -0.055, 1.91 | 0.066 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.531 | 0.342 | -0.139, 1.20 | 0.124 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.125 | 0.499 | -1.10, 0.853 | 0.803 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.9 | 0.645 | 27.6, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.47 | 0.910 | -0.312, 3.26 | 0.107 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.859 | 0.594 | -0.304, 2.02 | 0.152 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.001 | 0.866 | -1.70, 1.70 | 0.999 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.1 | 1.008 | 25.1, 29.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.978 | 1.422 | -3.76, 1.81 | 0.492 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.206 | 0.962 | -2.09, 1.68 | 0.831 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.55 | 1.404 | -5.30, 0.201 | 0.073 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.546 | 12.7, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.04 | 0.770 | -0.471, 2.55 | 0.179 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.400 | 0.540 | -0.658, 1.46 | 0.461 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.468 | 0.787 | -1.08, 2.01 | 0.554 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.4 | 0.438 | 14.5, 16.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.08 | 0.618 | -0.136, 2.29 | 0.083 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.726 | 0.444 | -0.145, 1.60 | 0.106 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.419 | 0.649 | -1.69, 0.852 | 0.520 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.940 | 27.3, 31.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.11 | 1.325 | -0.484, 4.71 | 0.113 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.12 | 0.915 | -0.673, 2.91 | 0.224 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.031 | 1.335 | -2.59, 2.65 | 0.981 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.160 | 12.3, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.007 | 0.226 | -0.450, 0.435 | 0.975 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.071 | 0.256 | -0.573, 0.431 | 0.782 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.166 | 0.371 | -0.562, 0.894 | 0.656 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.382 | 13.8, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.730 | 0.539 | -0.327, 1.79 | 0.177 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.754 | 0.453 | -0.135, 1.64 | 0.100 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.839 | 0.661 | -2.13, 0.456 | 0.207 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.472 | 12.3, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.274 | 0.665 | -1.03, 1.58 | 0.681 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.660 | 0.494 | -0.307, 1.63 | 0.185 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.062 | 0.720 | -1.47, 1.35 | 0.932 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.7 | 0.767 | 26.2, 29.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.00 | 1.081 | -1.12, 3.12 | 0.355 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.40 | 0.826 | -0.218, 3.02 | 0.093 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.866 | 1.204 | -3.23, 1.49 | 0.474 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.7 | 0.464 | 17.8, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.842 | 0.654 | -0.439, 2.12 | 0.199 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.904 | 0.468 | -0.013, 1.82 | 0.057 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.04 | 0.682 | -2.38, 0.294 | 0.130 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.274 | 13.9, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.005 | 0.386 | -0.762, 0.752 | 0.990 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.052 | 0.348 | -0.631, 0.735 | 0.881 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.654 | 0.507 | -0.341, 1.65 | 0.201 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.337 | 11.2, 12.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.343 | 0.475 | -1.27, 0.587 | 0.471 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.072 | 0.437 | -0.929, 0.785 | 0.869 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.572 | 0.637 | -1.82, 0.676 | 0.371 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.1 | 0.392 | 9.37, 10.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.159 | 0.553 | -0.924, 1.24 | 0.774 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.094 | 0.394 | -0.865, 0.678 | 0.813 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.10 | 0.574 | -2.22, 0.026 | 0.059 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 9.99 | 0.403 | 9.20, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.172 | 0.568 | -1.29, 0.942 | 0.762 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.296 | 0.400 | -1.08, 0.488 | 0.462 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.423 | 0.583 | -1.57, 0.720 | 0.470 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.36 | 0.395 | 7.59, 9.13 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.145 | 0.557 | -0.947, 1.24 | 0.795 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.028 | 0.435 | -0.880, 0.823 | 0.948 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.975 | 0.634 | -2.22, 0.267 | 0.127 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.5 | 1.108 | 26.3, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.132 | 1.562 | -2.93, 3.19 | 0.933 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.469 | 1.025 | -2.48, 1.54 | 0.648 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.28 | 1.496 | -5.21, 0.651 | 0.131 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.14 (95% CI [2.89, 3.39], t(244) = 24.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.28], t(244) = -0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.56], t(244) = 0.90, p = 0.366; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.90], t(244) = 1.22, p = 0.223; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.75])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.99e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.92 (95% CI [17.31, 18.53], t(244) = 57.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.05, 0.66], t(244) = -0.44, p = 0.657; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.61], t(244) = -0.51, p = 0.608; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.33, 2.07], t(244) = 1.42, p = 0.156; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.72])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.37 (95% CI [28.26, 30.48], t(244) = 51.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.33], t(244) = 0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [0.14, 2.42], t(244) = 2.20, p = 0.028; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.03, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.12, 2.21], t(244) = 0.64, p = 0.521; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.64e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.71 (95% CI [11.28, 12.14], t(244) = 53.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.74], t(244) = 0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.34], t(244) = -0.56, p = 0.574; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.10], t(244) = 1.16, p = 0.246; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.16 (95% CI [16.50, 17.83], t(244) = 50.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.44], t(244) = 1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.10], t(244) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.65], t(244) = 0.80, p = 0.424; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.08 (95% CI [12.47, 13.69], t(244) = 41.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.32], t(244) = 1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.10], t(244) = 1.17, p = 0.243; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.43], t(244) = 0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.45, 10.45], t(244) = 38.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.34], t(244) = -1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.54], t(244) = -0.33, p = 0.744; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.21, 95% CI [0.27, 2.14], t(244) = 2.53, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.12, 0.91])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.29e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.08 (95% CI [28.16, 32.00], t(244) = 30.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-2.98, 2.43], t(244) = -0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-2.96, 0.44], t(244) = -1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.95, 2.02], t(244) = -0.37, p = 0.712; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.57e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.55 (95% CI [21.54, 23.55], t(244) = 43.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.85, 0.99], t(244) = -0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.16, 0.96], t(244) = -0.19, p = 0.848; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-1.09, 2.00], t(244) = 0.58, p = 0.563; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.65e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.98 (95% CI [23.74, 26.21], t(244) = 39.56, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.08, 2.41], t(244) = 0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.78, 0.87], t(244) = -0.67, p = 0.500; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-1.22, 2.65], t(244) = 0.73, p = 0.467; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.56 (95% CI [18.05, 21.06], t(244) = 25.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.63, 95% CI [-0.50, 3.75], t(244) = 1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.67, 2.32], t(244) = 1.08, p = 0.278; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.52, 2.85], t(244) = 0.60, p = 0.552; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.51 (95% CI [9.72, 11.30], t(244) = 26.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.61], t(244) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.26], t(244) = 1.24, p = 0.215; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.44, 0.81], t(244) = -0.55, p = 0.583; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.78 (95% CI [13.56, 16.00], t(244) = 23.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.33, 2.10], t(244) = 0.44, p = 0.662; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.48, 2.19], t(244) = 1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-2.03, 1.87], t(244) = -0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.01e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.45 (95% CI [20.07, 22.84], t(244) = 30.29, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-1.53, 2.39], t(244) = 0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-0.36, 2.66], t(244) = 1.50, p = 0.135; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-2.43, 1.97], t(244) = -0.21, p = 0.836; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.78 (95% CI [14.81, 16.74], t(244) = 32.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.49], t(244) = 1.63, p = 0.104; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.90], t(244) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.52, 2.70], t(244) = 1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.12 (95% CI [12.51, 13.72], t(244) = 42.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.63], t(244) = 1.80, p = 0.071; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.56])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.24], t(244) = -1.28, p = 0.201; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.74], t(244) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.66 (95% CI [15.99, 17.34], t(244) = 48.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.50], t(244) = 1.12, p = 0.264; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.03], t(244) = 0.81, p = 0.417; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.30], t(244) = 0.43, p = 0.667; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.23 (95% CI [11.53, 12.93], t(244) = 34.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.91], t(244) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.20], t(244) = 1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.85], t(244) = -0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.90 (95% CI [27.63, 30.16], t(244) = 44.77, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-0.31, 3.26], t(244) = 1.62, p = 0.106; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.30, 2.02], t(244) = 1.45, p = 0.148; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.91e-04, 95% CI [-1.70, 1.70], t(244) = -1.03e-03, p > .999; Std. beta = -1.49e-04, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.08 (95% CI [25.10, 29.06], t(244) = 26.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-3.76, 1.81], t(244) = -0.69, p = 0.492; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-2.09, 1.68], t(244) = -0.21, p = 0.830; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.55, 95% CI [-5.30, 0.20], t(244) = -1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.77 (95% CI [12.70, 14.84], t(244) = 25.22, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.47, 2.55], t(244) = 1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.66, 1.46], t(244) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-1.08, 2.01], t(244) = 0.59, p = 0.552; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.41 (95% CI [14.55, 16.27], t(244) = 35.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.14, 2.29], t(244) = 1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.56])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.60], t(244) = 1.63, p = 0.102; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.85], t(244) = -0.65, p = 0.518; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.33, 31.02], t(244) = 31.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.11, 95% CI [-0.48, 4.71], t(244) = 1.59, p = 0.111; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-0.67, 2.91], t(244) = 1.22, p = 0.221; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-2.59, 2.65], t(244) = 0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = 3.63e-03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.24) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.86e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.63 (95% CI [12.31, 12.94], t(244) = 78.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -7.22e-03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.44], t(244) = -0.03, p = 0.974; Std. beta = -4.90e-03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.43], t(244) = -0.28, p = 0.781; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.89], t(244) = 0.45, p = 0.655; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.50 (95% CI [13.75, 15.25], t(244) = 37.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.79], t(244) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.64], t(244) = 1.66, p = 0.096; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-2.13, 0.46], t(244) = -1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.13])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.16e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.20 (95% CI [12.27, 14.12], t(244) = 27.99, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.58], t(244) = 0.41, p = 0.681; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.63], t(244) = 1.34, p = 0.181; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.47, 1.35], t(244) = -0.09, p = 0.932; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.33e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.70 (95% CI [26.19, 29.20], t(244) = 36.12, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-1.12, 3.12], t(244) = 0.93, p = 0.353; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.40, 95% CI [-0.22, 3.02], t(244) = 1.70, p = 0.090; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.87, 95% CI [-3.23, 1.49], t(244) = -0.72, p = 0.472; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.71 (95% CI [17.80, 19.62], t(244) = 40.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.44, 2.12], t(244) = 1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.01, 1.82], t(244) = 1.93, p = 0.053; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-3.02e-03, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.04, 95% CI [-2.38, 0.29], t(244) = -1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.19e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.41 (95% CI [13.87, 14.94], t(244) = 52.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.68e-03, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.75], t(244) = -0.01, p = 0.990; Std. beta = -1.83e-03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.73], t(244) = 0.15, p = 0.881; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.65], t(244) = 1.29, p = 0.198; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.65])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.83 (95% CI [11.17, 12.49], t(244) = 35.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.59], t(244) = -0.72, p = 0.470; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.78], t(244) = -0.17, p = 0.869; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.82, 0.68], t(244) = -0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.14 (95% CI [9.37, 10.91], t(244) = 25.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.24], t(244) = 0.29, p = 0.773; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.68], t(244) = -0.24, p = 0.812; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.10, 95% CI [-2.22, 0.03], t(244) = -1.91, p = 0.056; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.61, 7.06e-03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.99 (95% CI [9.20, 10.78], t(244) = 24.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.29, 0.94], t(244) = -0.30, p = 0.762; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.49], t(244) = -0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.72], t(244) = -0.73, p = 0.468; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.98e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.36 (95% CI [7.59, 9.13], t(244) = 21.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.24], t(244) = 0.26, p = 0.794; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.82], t(244) = -0.07, p = 0.948; Std. beta = -7.69e-03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-2.22, 0.27], t(244) = -1.54, p = 0.124; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.49 (95% CI [26.32, 30.66], t(244) = 25.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-2.93, 3.19], t(244) = 0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.48, 1.54], t(244) = -0.46, p = 0.647; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.28, 95% CI [-5.21, 0.65], t(244) = -1.52, p = 0.127; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 793.144 | 803.709 | -393.572 | 787.144 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 791.956 | 813.085 | -389.978 | 779.956 | 7.188 | 3 | 0.066 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,221.417 | 1,231.981 | -607.708 | 1,215.417 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,224.970 | 1,246.099 | -606.485 | 1,212.970 | 2.446 | 3 | 0.485 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 1,496.202 | 1,506.766 | -745.101 | 1,490.202 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 1,487.896 | 1,509.025 | -737.948 | 1,475.896 | 14.306 | 3 | 0.003 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,017.447 | 1,028.011 | -505.724 | 1,011.447 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,021.329 | 1,042.458 | -504.665 | 1,009.329 | 2.118 | 3 | 0.548 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 1,255.418 | 1,265.982 | -624.709 | 1,249.418 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 1,255.985 | 1,277.114 | -621.992 | 1,243.985 | 5.433 | 3 | 0.143 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 1,206.261 | 1,216.826 | -600.131 | 1,200.261 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 1,204.350 | 1,225.479 | -596.175 | 1,192.350 | 7.911 | 3 | 0.048 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,124.473 | 1,135.037 | -559.236 | 1,118.473 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,120.661 | 1,141.790 | -554.330 | 1,108.661 | 9.812 | 3 | 0.020 |
symptom | null | 3 | 1,740.165 | 1,750.730 | -867.083 | 1,734.165 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 1,740.544 | 1,761.673 | -864.272 | 1,728.544 | 5.622 | 3 | 0.132 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 1,437.788 | 1,448.352 | -715.894 | 1,431.788 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 1,443.152 | 1,464.281 | -715.576 | 1,431.152 | 0.636 | 3 | 0.888 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 1,544.335 | 1,554.899 | -769.168 | 1,538.335 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 1,548.761 | 1,569.890 | -768.381 | 1,536.761 | 1.574 | 3 | 0.665 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 1,637.658 | 1,648.222 | -815.829 | 1,631.658 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 1,636.324 | 1,657.453 | -812.162 | 1,624.324 | 7.334 | 3 | 0.062 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,306.429 | 1,316.993 | -650.214 | 1,300.429 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,310.120 | 1,331.249 | -649.060 | 1,298.120 | 2.309 | 3 | 0.511 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 1,540.180 | 1,550.744 | -767.090 | 1,534.180 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 1,543.280 | 1,564.409 | -765.640 | 1,531.280 | 2.900 | 3 | 0.407 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 1,605.478 | 1,616.042 | -799.739 | 1,599.478 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 1,607.831 | 1,628.960 | -797.915 | 1,595.831 | 3.647 | 3 | 0.302 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 1,442.924 | 1,453.488 | -718.462 | 1,436.924 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 1,433.187 | 1,454.316 | -710.593 | 1,421.187 | 15.737 | 3 | 0.001 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,199.797 | 1,210.361 | -596.898 | 1,193.797 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,198.246 | 1,219.375 | -593.123 | 1,186.246 | 7.551 | 3 | 0.056 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,246.009 | 1,256.574 | -620.005 | 1,240.009 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,247.917 | 1,269.046 | -617.959 | 1,235.917 | 4.092 | 3 | 0.252 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 1,247.631 | 1,258.195 | -620.815 | 1,241.631 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 1,246.673 | 1,267.802 | -617.336 | 1,234.673 | 6.958 | 3 | 0.073 |
els | null | 3 | 1,538.537 | 1,549.101 | -766.268 | 1,532.537 | |||
els | random | 6 | 1,537.914 | 1,559.042 | -762.957 | 1,525.914 | 6.623 | 3 | 0.085 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 1,768.760 | 1,779.325 | -881.380 | 1,762.760 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 1,766.281 | 1,787.409 | -877.140 | 1,754.281 | 8.480 | 3 | 0.037 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,463.577 | 1,474.141 | -728.788 | 1,457.577 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,464.417 | 1,485.546 | -726.208 | 1,452.417 | 5.160 | 3 | 0.160 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 1,358.126 | 1,368.690 | -676.063 | 1,352.126 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 1,358.443 | 1,379.572 | -673.222 | 1,346.443 | 5.683 | 3 | 0.128 |
shs | null | 3 | 1,733.491 | 1,744.056 | -863.746 | 1,727.491 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 1,733.938 | 1,755.067 | -860.969 | 1,721.938 | 5.553 | 3 | 0.135 |
esteem | null | 3 | 904.656 | 915.220 | -449.328 | 898.656 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 910.417 | 931.546 | -449.209 | 898.417 | 0.238 | 3 | 0.971 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,309.316 | 1,319.880 | -651.658 | 1,303.316 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,311.497 | 1,332.626 | -649.749 | 1,299.497 | 3.818 | 3 | 0.282 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 1,396.609 | 1,407.173 | -695.304 | 1,390.609 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 1,399.346 | 1,420.475 | -693.673 | 1,387.346 | 3.262 | 3 | 0.353 |
mlq | null | 3 | 1,644.219 | 1,654.783 | -819.110 | 1,638.219 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 1,646.404 | 1,667.533 | -817.202 | 1,634.404 | 3.815 | 3 | 0.282 |
empower | null | 3 | 1,384.308 | 1,394.872 | -689.154 | 1,378.308 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 1,385.634 | 1,406.763 | -686.817 | 1,373.634 | 4.673 | 3 | 0.197 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,151.820 | 1,162.385 | -572.910 | 1,145.820 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,153.968 | 1,175.097 | -570.984 | 1,141.968 | 3.853 | 3 | 0.278 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 1,256.715 | 1,267.280 | -625.358 | 1,250.715 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 1,259.687 | 1,280.815 | -623.843 | 1,247.687 | 3.029 | 3 | 0.387 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,303.355 | 1,313.920 | -648.678 | 1,297.355 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,301.146 | 1,322.275 | -644.573 | 1,289.146 | 8.209 | 3 | 0.042 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,310.966 | 1,321.530 | -652.483 | 1,304.966 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,313.303 | 1,334.432 | -650.652 | 1,301.303 | 3.662 | 3 | 0.300 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,316.506 | 1,327.070 | -655.253 | 1,310.506 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,317.715 | 1,338.844 | -652.857 | 1,305.715 | 4.791 | 3 | 0.188 |
sss | null | 3 | 1,809.542 | 1,820.106 | -901.771 | 1,803.542 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 1,808.893 | 1,830.022 | -898.447 | 1,796.893 | 6.649 | 3 | 0.084 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 86 | 3.14 ± 1.18 | 87 | 3.07 ± 1.18 | 0.695 | 0.073 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 41 | 3.31 ± 1.15 | -0.181 | 36 | 3.59 ± 1.15 | -0.536 | 0.301 | -0.282 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 86 | 17.92 ± 2.88 | 87 | 17.72 ± 2.88 | 0.658 | 0.095 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 41 | 17.70 ± 2.70 | 0.105 | 36 | 18.38 ± 2.68 | -0.319 | 0.273 | -0.330 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 86 | 29.37 ± 5.24 | 87 | 30.14 ± 5.24 | 0.338 | -0.280 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 41 | 30.65 ± 4.47 | -0.468 | 36 | 31.96 ± 4.36 | -0.667 | 0.194 | -0.479 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 86 | 11.71 ± 2.02 | 87 | 11.85 ± 2.02 | 0.646 | -0.124 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 41 | 11.57 ± 1.76 | 0.119 | 36 | 12.12 ± 1.73 | -0.238 | 0.169 | -0.481 |
ras_goal | 1st | 86 | 17.16 ± 3.16 | 87 | 17.67 ± 3.16 | 0.295 | -0.257 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 41 | 17.46 ± 2.84 | -0.149 | 36 | 18.44 ± 2.80 | -0.393 | 0.128 | -0.500 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 86 | 13.08 ± 2.90 | 87 | 13.54 ± 2.90 | 0.299 | -0.274 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 41 | 13.49 ± 2.55 | -0.246 | 36 | 14.38 ± 2.50 | -0.502 | 0.125 | -0.530 |
ras_domination | 1st | 86 | 9.95 ± 2.37 | 87 | 9.59 ± 2.37 | 0.310 | 0.233 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 41 | 9.85 ± 2.18 | 0.068 | 36 | 10.69 ± 2.15 | -0.697 | 0.091 | -0.532 |
symptom | 1st | 86 | 30.08 ± 9.07 | 87 | 29.80 ± 9.07 | 0.841 | 0.069 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 41 | 28.82 ± 7.40 | 0.313 | 36 | 28.07 ± 7.17 | 0.429 | 0.654 | 0.185 |
slof_work | 1st | 86 | 22.55 ± 4.76 | 87 | 22.11 ± 4.76 | 0.552 | 0.169 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 41 | 22.44 ± 4.09 | 0.041 | 36 | 22.47 ± 4.00 | -0.138 | 0.979 | -0.010 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 86 | 24.98 ± 5.86 | 87 | 25.64 ± 5.86 | 0.455 | -0.209 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 41 | 24.52 ± 5.05 | 0.143 | 36 | 25.91 ± 4.95 | -0.082 | 0.226 | -0.434 |
satisfaction | 1st | 86 | 19.56 ± 7.13 | 87 | 21.18 ± 7.13 | 0.135 | -0.455 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 41 | 20.39 ± 6.00 | -0.232 | 36 | 22.67 ± 5.85 | -0.417 | 0.092 | -0.640 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 86 | 10.51 ± 3.73 | 87 | 11.01 ± 3.73 | 0.379 | -0.271 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 41 | 11.00 ± 3.13 | -0.265 | 36 | 11.18 ± 3.05 | -0.094 | 0.794 | -0.100 |
mhc_social | 1st | 86 | 14.78 ± 5.75 | 87 | 15.16 ± 5.75 | 0.663 | -0.119 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 41 | 15.64 ± 5.01 | -0.266 | 36 | 15.94 ± 4.91 | -0.240 | 0.792 | -0.093 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 86 | 21.45 ± 6.57 | 87 | 21.89 ± 6.57 | 0.666 | -0.119 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 41 | 22.60 ± 5.69 | -0.317 | 36 | 22.80 ± 5.58 | -0.253 | 0.877 | -0.055 |
resilisnce | 1st | 86 | 15.78 ± 4.57 | 87 | 16.91 ± 4.57 | 0.106 | -0.423 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 41 | 16.57 ± 4.03 | -0.297 | 36 | 18.79 ± 3.96 | -0.705 | 0.016 | -0.831 |
social_provision | 1st | 86 | 13.12 ± 2.85 | 87 | 13.90 ± 2.85 | 0.073 | -0.463 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 41 | 12.66 ± 2.52 | 0.269 | 36 | 14.17 ± 2.48 | -0.163 | 0.009 | -0.895 |
els_value_living | 1st | 86 | 16.66 ± 3.20 | 87 | 17.21 ± 3.20 | 0.265 | -0.309 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 41 | 16.97 ± 2.77 | -0.172 | 36 | 17.74 ± 2.71 | -0.305 | 0.215 | -0.442 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 86 | 12.23 ± 3.30 | 87 | 13.16 ± 3.30 | 0.066 | -0.581 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 41 | 12.76 ± 2.75 | -0.332 | 36 | 13.57 ± 2.68 | -0.254 | 0.196 | -0.502 |
els | 1st | 86 | 28.90 ± 5.99 | 87 | 30.37 ± 5.99 | 0.107 | -0.532 | ||
els | 2nd | 41 | 29.75 ± 4.93 | -0.311 | 36 | 31.23 ± 4.79 | -0.310 | 0.186 | -0.532 |
social_connect | 1st | 86 | 27.08 ± 9.35 | 87 | 26.10 ± 9.35 | 0.492 | 0.218 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 41 | 26.88 ± 7.78 | 0.046 | 36 | 23.35 ± 7.57 | 0.613 | 0.045 | 0.785 |
shs_agency | 1st | 86 | 13.77 ± 5.06 | 87 | 14.80 ± 5.06 | 0.179 | -0.411 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 41 | 14.17 ± 4.26 | -0.158 | 36 | 15.67 ± 4.15 | -0.343 | 0.118 | -0.596 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 86 | 15.41 ± 4.07 | 87 | 16.48 ± 4.07 | 0.083 | -0.516 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 41 | 16.13 ± 3.45 | -0.348 | 36 | 16.79 ± 3.36 | -0.147 | 0.399 | -0.315 |
shs | 1st | 86 | 29.17 ± 8.72 | 87 | 31.29 ± 8.72 | 0.112 | -0.494 | ||
shs | 2nd | 41 | 30.29 ± 7.30 | -0.262 | 36 | 32.44 ± 7.11 | -0.269 | 0.193 | -0.501 |
esteem | 1st | 86 | 12.63 ± 1.48 | 87 | 12.62 ± 1.48 | 0.975 | 0.006 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 41 | 12.56 ± 1.47 | 0.055 | 36 | 12.72 ± 1.47 | -0.073 | 0.637 | -0.122 |
mlq_search | 1st | 86 | 14.50 ± 3.54 | 87 | 15.23 ± 3.54 | 0.177 | -0.338 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 41 | 15.25 ± 3.17 | -0.349 | 36 | 15.14 ± 3.12 | 0.040 | 0.879 | 0.051 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 86 | 13.20 ± 4.37 | 87 | 13.47 ± 4.37 | 0.681 | -0.118 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 41 | 13.86 ± 3.74 | -0.284 | 36 | 14.07 ± 3.66 | -0.258 | 0.802 | -0.091 |
mlq | 1st | 86 | 27.70 ± 7.11 | 87 | 28.70 ± 7.11 | 0.355 | -0.258 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 41 | 29.10 ± 6.14 | -0.360 | 36 | 29.24 ± 6.02 | -0.137 | 0.921 | -0.035 |
empower | 1st | 86 | 18.71 ± 4.30 | 87 | 19.55 ± 4.30 | 0.199 | -0.384 | ||
empower | 2nd | 41 | 19.61 ± 3.64 | -0.412 | 36 | 19.41 ± 3.55 | 0.064 | 0.807 | 0.092 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 86 | 14.41 ± 2.54 | 87 | 14.40 ± 2.54 | 0.990 | 0.003 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 41 | 14.46 ± 2.33 | -0.031 | 36 | 15.11 ± 2.30 | -0.421 | 0.220 | -0.387 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 86 | 11.83 ± 3.12 | 87 | 11.48 ± 3.12 | 0.471 | 0.162 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 41 | 11.75 ± 2.88 | 0.034 | 36 | 10.84 ± 2.85 | 0.305 | 0.163 | 0.434 |
sss_affective | 1st | 86 | 10.14 ± 3.64 | 87 | 10.30 ± 3.64 | 0.774 | -0.086 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 41 | 10.05 ± 3.07 | 0.051 | 36 | 9.11 ± 3.00 | 0.647 | 0.176 | 0.510 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 86 | 9.99 ± 3.74 | 87 | 9.82 ± 3.74 | 0.762 | 0.092 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 41 | 9.69 ± 3.15 | 0.158 | 36 | 9.10 ± 3.07 | 0.384 | 0.402 | 0.318 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 86 | 8.36 ± 3.66 | 87 | 8.51 ± 3.66 | 0.795 | -0.071 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 41 | 8.33 ± 3.19 | 0.014 | 36 | 7.50 ± 3.13 | 0.489 | 0.251 | 0.404 |
sss | 1st | 86 | 28.49 ± 10.27 | 87 | 28.62 ± 10.27 | 0.933 | -0.028 | ||
sss | 2nd | 41 | 28.02 ± 8.47 | 0.098 | 36 | 25.87 ± 8.23 | 0.576 | 0.261 | 0.450 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(231.26) = -0.39, p = 0.695, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.28)
2st
t(237.87) = 1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.79)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(216.53) = -0.44, p = 0.658, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.67)
2st
t(234.61) = 1.10, p = 0.273, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.89)
ras_confidence
1st
t(194.09) = 0.96, p = 0.338, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.34)
2st
t(242.89) = 1.30, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.67 to 3.30)
ras_willingness
1st
t(198.62) = 0.46, p = 0.646, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.75)
2st
t(240.02) = 1.38, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.34)
ras_goal
1st
t(205.02) = 1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.45)
2st
t(236.78) = 1.53, p = 0.128, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.28 to 2.25)
ras_reliance
1st
t(199.74) = 1.04, p = 0.299, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.33)
2st
t(239.36) = 1.54, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.02)
ras_domination
1st
t(210.56) = -1.02, p = 0.310, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.34)
2st
t(235.15) = 1.70, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.81)
symptom
1st
t(187.29) = -0.20, p = 0.841, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-3.00 to 2.44)
2st
t(245.98) = -0.45, p = 0.654, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-4.02 to 2.53)
slof_work
1st
t(195.35) = -0.60, p = 0.552, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.86 to 1.00)
2st
t(242.07) = 0.03, p = 0.979, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.84)
slof_relationship
1st
t(196.44) = 0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.09 to 2.42)
2st
t(241.37) = 1.21, p = 0.226, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.86 to 3.63)
satisfaction
1st
t(192.15) = 1.50, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.51 to 3.76)
2st
t(244.08) = 1.69, p = 0.092, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-0.38 to 4.95)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(191.52) = 0.88, p = 0.379, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.62)
2st
t(244.44) = 0.26, p = 0.794, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.57)
mhc_social
1st
t(197.96) = 0.44, p = 0.663, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.34 to 2.11)
2st
t(240.42) = 0.26, p = 0.792, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.93 to 2.53)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(197.21) = 0.43, p = 0.666, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.54 to 2.40)
2st
t(240.89) = 0.15, p = 0.877, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.33 to 2.73)
resilisnce
1st
t(200.71) = 1.63, p = 0.106, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.50)
2st
t(238.82) = 2.44, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (0.42 to 4.01)
social_provision
1st
t(201.53) = 1.80, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.63)
2st
t(238.38) = 2.65, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (0.39 to 2.63)
els_value_living
1st
t(196.93) = 1.12, p = 0.265, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.50)
2st
t(241.06) = 1.24, p = 0.215, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.01)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(190.58) = 1.85, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.92)
2st
t(244.93) = 1.30, p = 0.196, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.02)
els
1st
t(188.67) = 1.62, p = 0.107, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.32 to 3.27)
2st
t(245.71) = 1.33, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.71 to 3.65)
social_connect
1st
t(190.25) = -0.69, p = 0.492, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-3.78 to 1.83)
2st
t(245.09) = -2.01, p = 0.045, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-6.98 to -0.08)
shs_agency
1st
t(191.92) = 1.35, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.48 to 2.56)
2st
t(244.22) = 1.57, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.38 to 3.39)
shs_pathway
1st
t(193.21) = 1.74, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.14 to 2.30)
2st
t(243.44) = 0.85, p = 0.399, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.87 to 2.19)
shs
1st
t(191.19) = 1.59, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.50 to 4.73)
2st
t(244.62) = 1.30, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-1.09 to 5.38)
esteem
1st
t(237.90) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.44)
2st
t(241.03) = 0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.82)
mlq_search
1st
t(203.53) = 1.35, p = 0.177, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.79)
2st
t(237.41) = -0.15, p = 0.879, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.52 to 1.30)
mlq_presence
1st
t(194.99) = 0.41, p = 0.681, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.58)
2st
t(242.31) = 0.25, p = 0.802, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.45 to 1.88)
mlq
1st
t(196.66) = 0.93, p = 0.355, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.13 to 3.14)
2st
t(241.24) = 0.10, p = 0.921, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.60 to 2.87)
empower
1st
t(192.96) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.13)
2st
t(243.59) = -0.24, p = 0.807, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.82 to 1.41)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(209.73) = -0.01, p = 0.990, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.77 to 0.76)
2st
t(235.32) = 1.23, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.69)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(211.85) = -0.72, p = 0.471, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.59)
2st
t(234.93) = -1.40, p = 0.163, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.20 to 0.37)
sss_affective
1st
t(192.69) = 0.29, p = 0.774, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.25)
2st
t(243.76) = -1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.30 to 0.42)
sss_behavior
1st
t(192.09) = -0.30, p = 0.762, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.95)
2st
t(244.12) = -0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.99 to 0.80)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(198.02) = 0.26, p = 0.795, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.24)
2st
t(240.38) = -1.15, p = 0.251, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-2.25 to 0.59)
sss
1st
t(188.91) = 0.08, p = 0.933, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.95 to 3.21)
2st
t(245.63) = -1.13, p = 0.261, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-5.90 to 1.61)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(121.99) = 2.53, p = 0.026, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.11 to 0.93)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(106.81) = 1.46, p = 0.294, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.54)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(89.53) = 2.94, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.59 to 3.06)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(92.69) = 1.06, p = 0.585, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.78)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(97.39) = 1.76, p = 0.162, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.64)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(93.49) = 2.23, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.58)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(101.74) = 3.16, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (0.41 to 1.79)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(85.01) = -1.87, p = 0.129, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-3.57 to 0.11)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(90.40) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.50)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(91.15) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.17 to 1.69)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(88.21) = 1.83, p = 0.140, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.13 to 3.11)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(87.79) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.66 to 1.01)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(92.22) = 1.07, p = 0.578, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.22)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(91.69) = 1.12, p = 0.531, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.54)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(94.19) = 3.14, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.69 to 3.07)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(94.78) = 0.73, p = 0.940, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.02)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(91.49) = 1.35, p = 0.360, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.33)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(87.17) = 1.11, p = 0.537, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.13)
els
1st vs 2st
t(85.91) = 1.36, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.40 to 2.12)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(86.95) = -2.69, p = 0.017, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-4.79 to -0.72)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(88.06) = 1.51, p = 0.269, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.27 to 2.01)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(88.93) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.25)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(87.57) = 1.18, p = 0.481, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.79 to 3.09)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(131.37) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.63)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(96.27) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.87)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(90.14) = 1.14, p = 0.516, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.64)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(91.30) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.21 to 2.28)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(88.76) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.13 to 0.85)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(101.07) = 1.91, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.44)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(102.80) = -1.39, p = 0.337, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.57 to 0.28)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(88.58) = -2.85, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-2.03 to -0.36)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(88.17) = -1.69, p = 0.190, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.57 to 0.13)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(92.26) = -2.17, p = 0.065, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.92 to -0.08)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(86.07) = -2.52, p = 0.027, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-4.92 to -0.58)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(115.69) = 0.90, p = 0.741, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.56)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(102.73) = -0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.62)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(87.81) = 2.19, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.12 to 2.44)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(90.56) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.35)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(94.63) = 0.71, p = 0.960, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.11)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(91.25) = 1.16, p = 0.495, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.11)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(98.38) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.55)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(83.85) = -1.45, p = 0.300, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.99 to 0.47)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(88.56) = -0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.18 to 0.97)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(89.22) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.81 to 0.89)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(86.66) = 1.08, p = 0.564, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.69 to 2.35)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(86.29) = 1.24, p = 0.438, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.27)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(90.15) = 1.25, p = 0.427, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.50 to 2.22)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(89.69) = 1.49, p = 0.279, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.38 to 2.68)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(91.86) = 1.41, p = 0.326, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.92)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(92.37) = -1.28, p = 0.410, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.16 to 0.25)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(89.52) = 0.81, p = 0.840, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.05)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(85.75) = 1.55, p = 0.250, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.21)
els
1st vs 2st
t(84.64) = 1.44, p = 0.304, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.04)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(85.56) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.12 to 1.71)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(86.52) = 0.74, p = 0.923, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.47)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(87.29) = 1.63, p = 0.214, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.61)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(86.10) = 1.22, p = 0.451, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.94)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(123.67) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.58 to 0.44)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(93.66) = 1.66, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.66)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(88.34) = 1.33, p = 0.371, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.64)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(89.35) = 1.69, p = 0.188, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.24 to 3.05)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(87.14) = 1.93, p = 0.114, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.84)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(97.80) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.64 to 0.75)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(99.29) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.80)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(86.98) = -0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.69)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(86.62) = -0.74, p = 0.925, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.50)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(90.18) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.89 to 0.84)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(84.78) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.51 to 1.57)
Plot
